French Government Starts Blocking Websites With Views The Gov't Doesn't Like

from the liberte?-egalite? dept

We had been noting, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, how the country that then held a giant "free speech" rally appeared to be, instead, focusing on cracking down on free speech at every opportunity. And target number one: the internet. Earlier this week, the Interior Minister of France -- with no court review or adversarial process -- ordered five websites to not only be blocked in France, but that anyone who visits any of the sites get redirected to a scary looking government website, saying:

You are being redirected to this official website since your computer was about to connect with a page that provokes terrorist acts or condones terrorism publicly.

It appears that the French government has a very low opinion of the intelligence of the French public -- believing that merely reading something online will suddenly make them rush to join ISIS.

"I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet," Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.

"I make a distinction between freedom of expression and the spread of messages that serve to glorify terrorism. These hate messages are a crime."

Except... it already appears that France is really just censoring websites with messages it doesn't like. In that first batch was a site called "islamic-news.info." The owner of that site not only notes that he was never first contacted to "remove" whatever material was deemed terrorist supporting (as required by the law), but that nothing in what he had posted was supporting terrorism. He has written a public statement posted on the French news site Numerama, in which he makes it clear that he's a one-man operation, and that he's been doing everything based on a 50 euro/month hosting plan, and that he doesn't support ISIS or Al Qaeda at all. His site is opinionated, but mostly just against current Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. In fact, he notes that he specifically avoided topics that might be misinterpreted to suggest that he supported terrorists. He did not share ISIS propaganda or similar content. He even points out how he denounced a Syrian fighter who argued for attacks on Europe, saying that such things would reflect poorly on Muslims in Europe.

But, with no judicial review, no due process at all, the French government declared the site to be a terrorist supporter and now it's gone.

All that talk about France and free speech quickly fade into nothing. As Glenn Greenwald, at the Intercept, points out in response to all of this, blatant government censorship is far more damaging than terrorist attacks (while also noting that governments around the globe are moving in similar directions):

In sum, far more damage has been inflicted historically by efforts to censor and criminalize political ideas than by the kind of “terrorism” these governments are invoking to justify these censorship powers.

And whatever else may be true, few things are more inimical to, or threatening of, Internet freedom than allowing functionaries inside governments to unilaterally block websites from functioning on the ground that the ideas those sites advocate are objectionable or “dangerous.” That’s every bit as true when the censors are in Paris, London, and Ottawa, and Washington as when they are in Tehran, Moscow or Beijing.

France's "motto" is supposedly Liberté, égalité, fraternité. I have difficulty seeing how blatantly censoring websites you disagree with, without any sort of due process, fits with any of those three ideals.

I make a distinction between freedom of expression and the spread of messages that serve to glorify terrorism.

Someone tell him that you can have free speech, or you can block speech that you disagree with. You cannot have both, and by blocking the terrorist message you:1) Make it more attractive to those who will be influenced by it.2) You are doing the same as every totalitarian, including the terrorists, wants to do. That is trying to force your views and beliefs on other people.

Re:

France, the US, the UK... if you count terrorism's 'success' rate as far as killing people, it's a joke, statistically barely making it into the charts, if at all.

If the measurement the success rate in 'destroying the rights of people with the help of fearmongering governments' however, then yeah, terrorism has been insanely effective, scoring victories over entire countries, though for the most part that's been thanks to government action, rather than some piddly 'terrorists' blowing up a few bombs.

Governments love terrorism, as it gives them the excuse they need to grab as much power as they can, therefor it's in their best interests to hype it as much as possible, doing far more to strike fear into the public than some whackjobs with bombs could ever dream of doing.

Re:

to put on the tin foil hat, could a group in the French government had a deliberate hand in helping the terrorist attack happen just so they could seize control over the they did not like and mold the government into a more totalitarian one. Giving themselves more personal power?

Re: Re: Am I the only one

Not an atypical result. I tend to be drawn to censored or challenged material only to be disappointed after the fact that it was so dry or tame or otherwise unapproachable.

In the video game industry, my complaint about most games that approach controversial subjects (rampage killings, extremist ideology, racist propaganda) is that they're invariably bad, and not a game that anyone would actually want to play.

The rise of the guillotine was post enlightenment.

Before that the French were content with the rest of Christendom to burn heretics and hang everyone else.

This is not to say that the window of death did not exist in various forms, but Guillotine's namesake came from his suggestion that it would be a more humane form of execution than hanging, that often resulted in a slow strangulation.

But the Reign of Terror was definitely post enlightenment yet before they were capable of setting up an edifice of human rights, such as free speech. Even Emperor Napoleon was challenged in that regard when the fiction of the Count de Sade was popular, yet disagreeable to gentler minds.

Re: Been there, done that...

France has a tradition of economic protectionism, some of the most terrible legislation against voicing specific opinions as well as an extreme fear of modern technology.

The censoring of extremism is a pan-european movement. It is no surprise when UK and France are leading that charge. Both have some pretty problematic minorities internally.

I would personally look at going the other way around and improve the information around the religious works instead of playing wack-a-mole. Extremism is easiest to fight by making moderate interpretations easier to acquire, not by trying to stop extremistic interpretations by secterianists.

so the march of freedom demolition marches on! all caused by the USA and it's gutless politicians who gave and still give whatever Hollywood and the entertainment industries want! this censorship will continue now, with no way to stop it! every country that used to be condemned for censorship, removal of freedom and privacy are now sitting back and shaking their heads in disbelief! they are now the countries with better records than us so called 'democracies'! how the hell can this turn around come so quick and so complete in such a short time and all over, if you can accept it, music albums and movies! we must be even more than ever the laughing stock of the planet!!

Re:

It is never about safety or freedom or whatever buzz word they choose to use.

Tis has happened far too many times in history to count. It is about controlling your population to conform to how you see things.

No it is always about being seen to be doing something. In our current style of democracy that is what politicians believe will work to keep them in power.

It is the only way to explain the grotesque interventions overseas - which cost many lives - supposedly in the cause of freedom, whilst at home freedoms are sacrificed - supposedly in the cause of saving lives.

HTTPS all the things!

If the sites had been HTTPS-only (HSTS enabled), nobody would get "get redirected to a scary looking government website". They would only receive the generic "someone is trying to intercept your connection" error from the browser (with the correct combination of HSTS options, this error message cannot be bypassed).

Re: Coming to an Internet near you

I'm pretty sure when examining the extent of absolute free speech that child pornography, concurrent operational intelligence and certain kinds of hate speech still need to be verboten. Maybe ideally, they'd be not criminally so but culturally so, but given that our peoples still behave like they're starving, angry simians, laws can be useful in changing culture.

Ergo, "lawful" as a qualifier has its use. I'll grant you in the current clime, "unlawful content" creeps outward like kudzu, mostly to favor locking up intellectual property.

As Monroe noted, we are not angels, so some degree of government is necessary. But people in power like to believe they are angels, and so shield themselves from the very checks and balances that keep them in line.

And that is where government and regulation fails, not in its mere existence.

Re: Re: Coming to an Internet near you

I disagree. Government fails when it does exactly opposite its responsibility to serve and protect its citizens. When it becomes so busy with trying to make the average citizen pay money to those in power that it cannot serve and protect, it seems inevitable that it will become overbearing and criminalize everyone to extract that money in some way shape or form. America went down the tubes when it allowed congress to change the law to keep income tax after the end of WWI.

Use their weapons against them

Why doesn't Anon or Lulz take the time to divert access to all of France's government websites to that warning page. When the government's own weapons are used against them they quickly get the message.